D&D 5E Char Ops forums: Something I wish hadn't come over.

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I prefer to start the game with a character who's pretty much fully formed, who has all the skills she needs to be the concept, and just gets better at those skills. Maybe she adds to those skills later on, picking up a thing or two from an unexpected career change or hobby. That makes sense to me, because that happens - you pick up another skill here and there over your career, maybe you change careers entirely. But I don't know anyone who starts out with their skill and profession acquisitions all mapped out like an optimizer maps out his character's life.

In other words, if I want Indiana Jones, if the character can start out with a PhD in archaeology, decent DEX, STR, CON, and INT, proficiencies in Whip, Pistol, Acrobatics, and Dungeoneering, I'm happy. If "the best" means I have to have a map that starts him as a Human Variant for the free feat, then Rogue to get X Y Z, then takes the stat bump at level 4, then splash Monk for three, then back to Rogue for five, then a splash of Fighter, then back to Monk until endgame, well, that's too crunchy for me.

See, I'm just the opposite. I view the act of choosing subclass/feats/multiclassing in advance at chargen as a way of quickly whipping up a new virtual class. E.g. "Bardlock" is a separate class from Bard or Warlock, in this view, and while he may take the Warlock level at level 7, he's been dabbling in warlockery all along. Or instead of suddenly deciding to be Lucky at level 4, it's a class where Lucky is what you get at level 4, not through some conscious choice of the character but because that's what Lucky Bardlocks get at level 4 (or 11 or whatever).

When I have a character who makes a conscious choice to multiclass or "take a feat" at a certain level, I find it a bit jarring. For multiclassing I can rationalize it in the same way as dual-classing, but for taking a feat... I don't know what to do with it.

It's a better role-playing experience for me if none of those decisions happen during play, so play can focus on being the character instead of dissociated mechanics like chargen/advancement.

 

[Sunseeker]

Why not? It's the lack of empathy that often differentiates a "bad" optimizer from a good player. I hope that no one is arguing that all optimization is "badwrongfun." But it seems odd that people would discount the lived experience of so many that optimizers tend to make the game less fun, when they are playing with people who do not share their passion.

That's the point- and it's a simple one. If you like min/maxing, and your group likes min/maxing, and your DM accommodates min/maxing, then that's a great game experience! You are playing the RAW and RAI, and everyone is having a good time. The problem arises when an optimizer doesn't understand that his personal ideas are not shared by everyone at the table.

So, to answer the question, "Why would you make a less-than-perfect realization of your character?"

Because not everyone wants to optimize their characters. Because different people have fun with different aspects of the game. And because tabletop is a shared social experience, it is important for there to be some give-and-take.

Okay, I'll be honest, if you want your character to be good at something, why would you stat them so they are bad at it?

If it's part of your character that you're average at something and stat appropriately, that's still optimizing, just with the goal of your ideal character performance instead of ideal mechanical performance. If you wanted to make say, a sexy spanish rogue who hit on all the beautiful ladies, why would you give him a CHA of 8? What you'd end up doing is simply annoying everyone at the table as you consistently performed badly at your romance attempts. I've played with people like this before. They want their character to be good at X but don't design them mechnically to be good at X, so they end up being bad at X, which makes them frustrated, takes up time at the table, puts the party at risk and results in a un-fun time for everyone.

So I'll be honest, if you want to play your character like they're good at something but not support that role-play with the appropriate mechanics, I don't want to play with you. I don't care what you want to be good at, but I see no reason why anyone would stat themselves to be bad at something they want to be good at, it's completely contrary.

And this whole argument that optimizers should only play with optimizers strikes me as the TTRPG version of different colored fountains.

I make an effort to make the best character I can, I also make an effort to not overshadow others, and to not put other people down. What matters is the last part, because anyone doing anything at the table can do those last two and those are the two are the ones that people get upset over. If that's more common with optimizers (which I'm not interested in debating if it isn't or isn't) then the solution to all table problems remains: find better players. If you're going to hang a big sign on your table "NO OPTIMIZERS ALLOWED!" I'm going to argue that it's not the potential optimizing player who is the problem.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mistwell]

Three points-

1. Any person who feels the need to tell me that they are about to be honest, likely isn't. Just an observation.

2. The argument that styles of play might not mesh well is the exact same thing as JIM CROW SEGREGATION is neither helpful nor appropriate.

Woah dude. First you call him a liar (unless you can think of some other way to read "You just said you're going to be honest which means you likely are not), and then compared his comment to racist segregation? Hyperbolic much? Maybe take the over-the-top rhetoric down a notch and not insult your peers in your zeal for people to hear your position. Or is the handle "LowKey" meant ironically?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mistwell]

Very briefly-

I was trying to point out the "verbal" (written) tic-

"Okay, I'll be honest,"
"So I'll be honest,"

It's an, "...example of an adverbial disjunct, which indicates the speaker's attitude toward the sentence without affecting the meaning of the sentence. It is often used, consciously or otherwise, to preface a statement that the speaker believes is particularly candid in the present context, possibly to an extent that might cause mild offense."

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[The Yellow Pill]

There's a curious juxtaposition between this thread and the Cultural Appropriation thread in that both are talking about movements that started with a subculture asserting its right to exist but morphed into that same subculture coming to the conclusion "Not only are we not a problem... YOU'RE the problem!" Such it is with the Smug Gamist.

What's a Smug Gamist? Someone who says things like this:

So I'll be honest, if you want to play your character like they're good at something but not support that role-play with the appropriate mechanics, I don't want to play with you. I don't care what you want to be good at, but I see no reason why anyone would stat themselves to be bad at something they want to be good at, it's completely contrary.

And then he'll immediately contradict himself:

And this whole argument that optimizers should only play with optimizers strikes me as the TTRPG version of different colored fountains.

So he doesn't want to play with you, but if you don't want to play with him you're a segregationist.

In general, the black/white thinking here is pretty brutal.

 

[Shasarak]

("Yeah, I'm Lucky now because I killed enough orcs." What?)

Makes sense to me, the other characters that were killed by the Orcs were obviously the "Unlucky" ones!